Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
The appellant made a request under the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Toronto Police Services Board (the Police) for access to records relating to charges laid against him under the Provincial Offences Act. More specifically, the appellant sought access to:
1. Names, badge numbers and notes of police officers involved in the arrest
2. Police radio dispatch records relating to the incident, including recordings and transcripts
3. Surveillance video tape from outside the police building at the time of the incident
4. The Police policy, procedures or guidelines on video surveillance in the relevant areas
5. Name, badge number and notes of the officer who allegedly was involved in making the decision to charge the appellant
6. The records authorizing the Police to enforce the
Trespass to Property Act on the site in question, such as any City by-law or specific written direction from the landowner
7. Notes that a specific detective made about the incident and his communications with the Peel Regional Police Service regarding efforts to return the appellant’s camera or about the appellant in general
The Police identified 13 pages of responsive records. The Police granted the appellant access in full to 10 pages, and access in part to three pages (pages 1, 6 and 13). The Police withheld information from the three pages on the basis that they were not responsive to the request.
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Toronto Police Services Board (the Police) for access to records relating to charges laid against him under the Provincial Offences Act. More specifically, the appellant sought access to:
- Names, badge numbers and notes of police officers involved in the arrest
- Police radio dispatch records relating to the incident, including recordings and transcripts
- Surveillance video tape from outside the police building at the time of the incident
- The Police policy, procedures or guidelines on video surveillance in the relevant areas
- Name, badge number and notes of the officer who allegedly was involved in making the decision to charge the appellant
- The records authorizing the Police to enforce the Trespass to Property Act on the site in question, such as any City by-law or specific written direction from the landowner
- Notes that a specific detective made about the incident and his communications with the Peel Regional Police Service regarding efforts to return the appellant’s camera or about the appellant in general
The Police identified 13 pages of responsive records. The Police granted the appellant access in full to 10 pages, and access in part to three pages (pages 1, 6 and 13). The Police withheld information from the three pages on the basis that they were not responsive to the request.
In addition, the Police identified a police radio audio tape as responsive to the request, and granted partial access to it, withholding portions on the basis of the exemption at section 38(a)/14(1)(l) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act) of the Act.
The Police also responded to specific aspects of the request as follows:
3. There is no transcript or any videotape of you concerning this matter, therefore access to the requested records cannot be provided, as such records do not exist.
5. Please be advised that no other police officers (except [named police officer) have been identified as attending or having involvement with the matter related to your Provincial Offences Act ticket . . .
7. With respect to [named police officer], there are no memorandum book notes pertaining to this event, or concerning contact with Peel Regional Police about return of your camera, therefore access to the requested records cannot be provided as such records do not exist.
The appellant then appealed the decision of the Police to this office.
During mediation, the appellant agreed to withdraw his request for items 4 and 6, leaving only items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 at issue.
Mediation was not successful in resolving all of the issues in the appeal, so the matter was streamed to the adjudication stage of the process.
I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Police, initially, outlining the facts and issues and requesting written representations. The Police submitted representation in response, the non-confidential portions of which I shared with the appellant, along with a copy of the Notice. The appellant in turn provided representations.
RECORDS:
The information at issue is contained in two pages of police officer’s notes (pages 1 and 6), one page of a CAD event details report (page 13), and a police radio audiotape (approximately 2 minutes, 25 seconds long).
The appellant also believes additional records exist which the Police have not identified.
DISCUSSION:
SCOPE OF THE REQUEST/RESPONSIVENESS OF INFORMATION
Section 17 of the Act imposes certain obligations on requesters and institutions when submitting and responding to requests for access to records. This section states, in part:
(1) A person seeking access to a record shall,
(a) make a request in writing to the institution that the person believes has custody or control of the record;
(b) provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution, upon a reasonable effort, to identify the record; and
. . . . .
(2) If the request does not sufficiently describe the record sought, the institution shall inform the applicant of the defect and shall offer assistance in reformulating the request so as to comply with subsection (1).
To be considered responsive to the request, records must “reasonably relate” to the request [Order P-880].
The Police take the position that the withheld portions of pages 1, 6 and 13 relate to incidents other than that involving the appellant. More specifically, they submit:
[These portions] document other events in which the police were involved. These records contain information which is completely unrelated to the matter involving the appellant.
The withheld portion of page 1 relates to a complaint previously assigned to the identified officer. The requester has no involvement in this matter, which was detailed prior to the named police officer commencing his investigation of the requester for trespassing in the parking lot.
The withheld portion of page 6 relates to a timeframe after the requester’s investigation was concluded. This portion of the record contains the personal information of the named police officer (with respect to his tour of duty for payroll purposes with supervisor’s signature), and as such, is not related to the requester in any way.
Additionally, the withheld portion on page 13 relates to matters taking place on entirely different dates than the date on which the appellant was investigated by the named officer.
All the above-described information is totally unrelated to the requester in any way, and as such, was deemed to be non-responsive, and was severed from the records in question.
The appellant submits:
First of all the meanings of the codes used has been withheld and I have brought this to the attention of the IPC on many occasions. Without which I can not properly understand the records provided or make submissions to the Inquiry.
Next is defining the exact time frame that [named police officer] was involved with me. I would those [sic] records that have been severed or denied would show this. This I know, the officer above was leaving his station to attend a call when he looked up to see me as he was walking to his car, not as his notes would suggest. I believe this call was to do with someone’s credit cards/purse being stolen or used, as he showed me the paperwork he was hold [sic] as he left the station. It would important [sic] to know when he either resumed that call or took another, either way when he ended his involvement with me and/or started the paperwork on my case before doing other things. This time frame can be compared to what he claims to the case [sic] to discover the real length of time, which should be considered part of a personal record. So yes, other records are in part responsive to my FOI request if they can define the above.
The information the Police withheld from pages 1, 6 and 13 clearly does not relate to the incident involving the appellant that is the subject matter of his request. Also, in these circumstances, I am not convinced that any time frames involving other matters are reasonably relevant to the appellant’s request. Therefore, I find that the information the Police withheld from pages 1, 6 and 13 is not responsive to the appellant’s request.
PERSONAL INFORMATION